Derek Chauvin murder trial (George Floyd)

Tell me how

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The old argument of blacks being killed by the cops more frequently than whites has been debunked countless times

here is another stats

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

It has been pointed out to you many times as to the misrepresentation your post is given the comparative size of black populations versus white.

I've seen your weak attempt to suggest 'involvement in crime' as some sort of collary but your possibly being deliberately effusive there as well.

Is someone 'involved in crime' if police officers suspect them to be so? Because if so that's just part of the same prejudicial viewpoint that this whole thing is about.

ohnonotgmail

Mic 1972 wrote: »

since logic isnt your strongest skill, see below for more details

My logic is grand thanks. yours on the other hand ...

The old argument of blacks being killed by the cops more frequently than whites has been debunked countless times

is nonsense you have keep reposting in the hope that repetition might make it true.

Penn

Mic 1972 wrote: »

No, as many said before

you need to look at the ratio of black v whites population, black v whites ratio of involvement with crime, brack v white ratio of killings by the cops

As you said before

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The old argument of blacks being killed by the cops more frequently than whites has been debunked countless times

You then posted a link to a page which had a graph showing only the numerical figures of people killed by police, by race. However, a link on that page brings you to this other graph, which shows the rate (not number) of fatal police shootings by ethnicity. It shows that black people, per million, are almost 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white people.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

So again, do you now agree based on the statistics that black people are more likely to be killed than white people?

Mic 1972

No need to ask the same question over and over, it's been answered pretty well already pages ago
if the crime rate is high in a specific ethnic group, then the killing by the police rate will be higher too

Penn

Mic 1972 wrote: »

No need to ask the same question over and over, it's been answered pretty well already pages ago
if the crime rate is high in a specific ethnic group, then the killing by the police rate will be higher too

It seems I did need to keep asking the question over and over, because what you're saying now is the complete opposite of your post I keep quoting.

Mic 1972 wrote: »

The old argument of blacks being killed by the cops more frequently than whites has been debunked countless times

But fair enough, no point discussing further.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Expand on that if you will.

What part do I need to expand on, the hypocrisy is obvious... Posters go out of their way to provide excuses for US police officers that they'd never give for RUC officers who acted the same way. Similarly, key parts of the Good Friday agreement voted overwhelmingly by the Irish people align with demands of anti-police protesters in the US - who some here claim are 'crazy' demands that would end civilisation as we know it.

Take the below (I'm not calling the poster here hypocritical as I haven't seen them post some of the disgusting stuff you and others come out with).

briany wrote: »

I can understand from just a human standpoint how a police officer might become jaded towards black people if all they do day in day out is run up on predominantly black gang bangers in some inner city area. It's still not any kind of excuse, though, if that officer uses excessive force against someone due to an acquired prejudice.

Imagine making the statement on boards or any pub in Ireland that from a human standpoint how an RUC officer who had just been sentenced to murder of an unarmed Catholic person for choking them to death for 9 minutes might have justifiably become jaded towards the Catholic community in the north given the terrorism, crime, and violence coming from that community.

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

What part do I need to expand on, the hypocrisy is obvious... Posters go out of their way to provide excuses for US police officers that they'd never give for RUC officers who acted the same way. Similarly, key parts of the Good Friday agreement voted overwhelmingly by the Irish people align with demands of anti-police protesters in the US - who some here claim are 'crazy' demands that would end civilisation as we know it.

Take the below (I'm not calling the poster here hypocritical as I haven't seen them post some of the disgusting stuff you and others come out with).



Imagine making the statement on boards or any pub in Ireland that from a human standpoint how an RUC officer who had just been sentenced to murder of an unarmed Catholic person for choking them to death for 9 minutes might have justifiably become jaded towards the Catholic community in the north given the terrorism, crime, and violence coming from that community.

I'm sorry foxtrol, I can't in good conscience engage with you further until you tell me what "disgusting stuff" I come out with.

These types of baseless and insulting statements need to be challenged as it seems to be a go to tactic in order to dismiss a differing opinion.

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry foxtrol, I can't in good conscience engage with you further until you tell me what "disgusting stuff" I come out with.

These types of baseless and insulting statements need to be challenged as it seems to be a go to tactic in order to dismiss a differing opinion.

Just yesterday you called BLM protesters 'racist thugs'. Would you label all catholic protesters in the north during troubles 'thugs' due to the actions of a minority who regularly turned protests violent? Some Bloody Sunday protesters were throwing rocks at police - were all those protesters also 'thugs'? I'd call those kind of statements disgusting.

take everything

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yeah right. You just happened to ask a leading question. Entirely innocent like.

Eh no. No I didn't.
I asked a simple question which seems to have upset you unduly.

You're coming across as very emotional in this and most of your other replies to posters.

Mic 1972

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

is nonsense you have keep reposting in the hope that repetition might make it true.

Actually, I posted that line only once, but it got replicated countless times today alone. I must have said something right

Mic 1972

Penn wrote: »

It seems I did need to keep asking the question over and over, because what you're saying now is the complete opposite of your post I keep quoting.



But fair enough, no point discussing further.

These 2 posts of mine must have really annoyed you because you decided to answer them twice in the span of 30 minutes

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

Just yesterday you called BLM protesters 'racist thugs'. Would you label all catholic protesters in the north during troubles 'thugs' due to the actions of a minority who regularly turned protests violent? Some Bloody Sunday protesters were throwing rocks at police - were all those protesters also 'thugs'? I'd call those kind of statements disgusting.

Can you please give me the context in which I said that? I am happy to clarify.

I don't consider every person who protests against racial inequality as racist thugs. I do consider people who align themselves with BLM as racist thugs.

Also the BLM organisation and Catholic protesters are not comparable.

I would consider IRA sympathisers thugs.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

No need to ask the same question over and over, it's been answered pretty well already pages ago
if the crime rate is high in a specific ethnic group, then the killing by the police rate will be higher too

Why would the crime rate being high automatically lead to killings by police being higher?
Now, if you said that it leads to higher rates of that ethnic group in the prison population, or conviction rates for that group, well and good, there is a connection.
But, you believe that if an ethnic group commit more crime, they will automatically be killed more by police...........seems you agree with posters here you think you're arguing with!

Penn

Mic 1972 wrote: »

These 2 posts of mine must have really annoyed you because you decided to answer them twice in the span of 30 minutes

I was just hoping you'd have the honesty and integrity to admit you were wrong and were, intentionally or accidentally, misrepresenting statistics. I thought by giving you the chance we could have a proper discussion, but you clearly decided against that.

At least I tried.

Smee_Again

bubblypop wrote: »

Why would the crime rate being high automatically lead to killings by police being higher?
Now, if you said that it leads to higher rates of that ethnic group in the prison population, or conviction rates for that group, well and good, there is a connection.
But, you believe that if an ethnic group commit more crime, they will automatically be killed more by police...........seems you agree with posters here you think you're arguing with!

It’s almost like mic doesn’t realise cops aren’t supposed to kill people.

In fairness to him it appears some cops haven’t figured that out either.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Why would the crime rate being high automatically lead to killings by police being higher?
Now, if you said that it leads to higher rates of that ethnic group in the prison population, or conviction rates for that group, well and good, there is a connection.
But, you believe that if an ethnic group commit more crime, they will automatically be killed more by police...........seems you agree with posters here you think you're arguing with!

More interaction with the police would surely increase the likelihood of lethal force being used as well as a higher rate of conviction/arrests.

I'm not sure I get where you are coming from

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

I do consider people who align themselves with BLM as racist thugs.

93% of BLM protests are peaceful. With no riots, no over-policing, nothing.

The fact you will label all of them racist thugs is absolutely disgusting and you just throw that point out despite the facts being spelled out to you all the time.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

More interaction with the police would surely increase the likelihood of lethal force being used as well as a higher rate of conviction/arrests.

I'm not sure I get where you are coming from

How does more interaction with police lead to more killings by police? I'm not sure how you think that makes sense?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

How does more interaction with police lead to more killings by police? I'm not sure how you think that makes sense?

If a certain demographic has more interaction with the police, then the likelihood of fatal interactions will be increased within that demographic.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If a certain demographic has more interaction with the police, then the likelihood of fatal interactions will be increased within that demographic.

Which means you believe that police are more likely to kill someone who is in that demographic.
In this case black.
Just for interacting with police.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Which means you believe that police are more likely to kill someone who is in that demographic.
In this case black.
Just for interacting with police.

That's not even close to what I am saying.

I'm saying that the more interactions with police, the greater the likelihood of one of those interactions will end up
escalating into a fatal consequence.

ohnonotgmail

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Actually, I posted that line only once, but it got replicated countless times today alone. I must have said something right

many people correcting you is not an indication that you said something right. Don't worry though, if you ever do get anything right I will be sure to let you know.

notobtuse

I can see him getting a new trial based on attorney incompetence. There was a biased juror that any competent lawyer would never have allowed sit on the jury. But the guy is dead broke and an attorney would have to take on the case pro bono, but I don’t think it will happen because no attorney would want all that negative publicity.

Tell me how

notobtuse wrote: »

I can see him getting a new trial based on attorney incompetence. There was a biased juror that any competent lawyer would never have allowed sit on the jury. But the guy is dead broke and an attorney would have to take on the case pro bono, but I don’t think it will happen because no attorney would want all that negative publicity.

Did you just change your mind while typing a single post?

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you please give me the context in which I said that? I am happy to clarify.

Do you throw out terms like that so often that you cannot keep track of what you posted yesterday?

Deleted User wrote: »

The gesture is linked to BLM. Regardless of what anyone else says. It's intrinsically linked because of the actions of racist thugs over the past year or so.

I don't consider every person who protests against racial inequality as racist thugs. I do consider people who align themselves with BLM as racist thugs.

Also the BLM organisation and Catholic protesters are not comparable.

I would consider IRA sympathisers thugs.

The BLM Movement and the Catholic community movement are very comparable, they even cover many of the same themes - including equality and policing.

There were elements a both BLM protests and Catholic community protests that got involved in violence, rioted, and attacked police yet you want to paint everyone that is associated with the BLM movement with the worst part of it while trying to carve out a tiny piece of the protesters in the north that were wrongdoers.

This is the exact hypocrisy I was talking about - it has stunk this place out for the last year.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I can see him getting a new trial based on attorney incompetence. There was a biased juror that any competent lawyer would never have allowed sit on the jury. But the guy is dead broke and an attorney would have to take on the case pro bono, but I don’t think it will happen because no attorney would want all that negative publicity.

were all 12 jurors biased? He hasn't a hope in hell of getting a new trial because of ineffective representation of counsel. There are cases of attorneys being drunk during the trial, falling asleep during the trial, having an active mental illness during a trial and that still didn't count as ineffective assistance of counsel.

Foxtrol

notobtuse wrote: »

I can see him getting a new trial based on attorney incompetence. There was a biased juror that any competent lawyer would never have allowed sit on the jury. But the guy is dead broke and an attorney would have to take on the case pro bono, but I don’t think it will happen because no attorney would want all that negative publicity.

That is just wrong, the Police Association/Union are paying all his legal fees

bewareofthedog

Faugheen wrote: »

93% of BLM protests are peaceful. With no riots, no over-policing, nothing.

The fact you will label all of them racist thugs is absolutely disgusting and you just throw that point out despite the facts being spelled out to you all the time.

99.999999999999999% of police interactions with the public are peaceful.

The fact that you say there's a widespread problem in dealing with minorities is absolutely disgusting.

notobtuse

Tell me how wrote: »

Did you just change your mind while typing a single post?

Nope. I can see him getting a new trial if he could get a good lawyer.

Mic 1972

Penn wrote: »

I was just hoping you'd have the honesty and integrity to admit you were wrong and were, intentionally or accidentally, misrepresenting statistics. I thought by giving you the chance we could have a proper discussion, but you clearly decided against that.

At least I tried.

You have been answered many times over already, not just by me.
The stats are very clear as to who are more likely to be looking for trouble.
go looking for trouble, and you will find it

notobtuse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

were all 12 jurors biased? He hasn't a hope in hell of getting a new trial because of ineffective representation of counsel. There are cases of attorneys being drunk during the trial, falling asleep during the trial, having an active mental illness during a trial and that still didn't count as ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees your right to effective counsel. Look up “Ineffective assistance of counsel.”

pjohnson

Why would a competent lawyer take a guaranteed loss in trying to save Chauvin :pac:

Foxtrol

bewareofthedog wrote: »

99.999999999999999% of police interactions with the public are peaceful.

The fact that you say there's a widespread problem in dealing with minorities is absolutely disgusting.

So you're claiming the hundreds of thousands of black people that marched in the US over the last year are lying about their experiences and concerns?

I'd like to see that evidence.

Mic 1972

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

many people correcting you is not an indication that you said something right. Don't worry though, if you ever do get anything right I will be sure to let you know.

Many people agreeing with one another doesn't make a truth.
No matter how many times you can dissect the stats.

To avoid being killed by the cops is very easy, be honest and the cops won't come for you. if they do, collaborate and don't resist arrest

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

The Sixth Amendment guarantees your right to effective counsel. Look up “Ineffective assistance of counsel.”

I did before I answered. They (The Supreme Court) set a very high bar for the defendant to prove their counsel was ineffective. Chauvins attorney doesn't even come close.

Mic 1972

Foxtrol wrote: »

So you're claiming the hundreds of thousands of black people that marched in the US over the last year are lying about their experiences and concerns?

I'd like to see that evidence.

Did their experience with the police have anything to do with their behavior in the first place? Was there anything they could do to avoid getting in trouble with the cops?

ohnonotgmail

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Many people agreeing with one another doesn't make a truth.
No matter how many times you can dissect the stats.

To avoid being killed by the cops is very easy, be honest and the cops won't come for you. if they do, collaborate and don't resist arrest

You were wrong with your original assertion. You didnt understand the difference between absolute stats and per capita stats. Be smart enough not to continually remind others of your error.

Foxtrol

Mic 1972 wrote: »

You have been answered many times over already, not just by me.
The stats are very clear as to who are more likely to be looking for trouble.
go looking for trouble, and you will find it

Are you describing the police approach that stopped and searched non-white people at a much higher rate than white people that was later found to be unconstitutional?

Billy Mays

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Did their experience with the police have anything to do with their behavior in the first place? Was there anything they could do to avoid getting in trouble with the cops?

They could stop driving I suppose

Foxtrol

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Did their experience with the police have anything to do with their behavior in the first place? Was there anything they could do to avoid getting in trouble with the cops?

Same as in the north, they saw police discriminating against their community.

I'm sure you supported the RUC too, more interactions with the Catholic community and all that...

Mic 1972

Billy Mays wrote: »

They could stop driving I suppose

or maybe they could simply collaborate with the cops when they get stopped instead of becoming confrontational

Foxtrol

Foxtrol wrote: »

Do you throw out terms like that so often that you cannot keep track of what you posted yesterday?

Ah my dear friend, the context is indeed key.

The gesture is linked to BLM. Regardless of what anyone else says. It's intrinsically linked because of the actions of racist thugs over the past year or so.

That's not even remotely controversial. The kneeling gesture was hijacked by the disgusting BLM movement. I won't support anyone using that gesture as a protest. How is that disgusting?

And no, BLM and Catholicism aren't comparable.

As I stated previously, people campaigning for racial equality outside the banner of BLM, I wholeheartedly support. Much as I support Catholics looking for equal treatment once they don't do so under the IRA banner.

There's the difference.

Mic 1972

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You were wrong with your original assertion. You didnt understand the difference between absolute stats and per capita stats. Be smart enough not to continually remind others of your error.

stop the gaslighting, unfortunately for the majority of honest black people who really get a bad reputation unfairly, the crime stats are not in their favor

Billy Mays

Mic 1972 wrote: »

or collaborate with the cops when they get stopped instead of becoming confrontational

Or the cops could stop pulling people over for dwb

Mic 1972

Foxtrol wrote: »

Same as in the north, they saw police discriminating against their community.

I'm sure you supported the RUC too, more interactions with the Catholic community and all that...

Diverging the question

ohnonotgmail

Mic 1972 wrote: »

stop the gaslighting, unfortunately for the majority of honest black people who really get a bad reputation unfairly, the crime stats are not in their favor

Jesus, i've seen people doubling and tripling down but you take the biscuit. You're not worth responding to.

Mic 1972

Billy Mays wrote: »

Or the cops could stop pulling people over for dwb

the cops can pull people whenever they see fit, as an honest citizen you have nothing to worry about
...until you decide to reach for your pocket or do something stupid

Mic 1972

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Jesus, i've seen people doubling and tripling down but you take the biscuit. You're not worth responding to.

your replies wont be missed

ohnonotgmail

Mic 1972 wrote: »

your replies wont be missed

and yours won't be seen.

Mic 1972

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and yours won't be seen.

like the one you just replied to?